Re: Interval hardware and existing practice
> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:29:23 -0400
> From: Nate Hayes <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Interval hardware and existing practice
> To: STDS-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> . . .
> >
>
> In my view, the problem with decorated intervals is they don't appear to
> provide any benefit or function that can't be achieved more simply and
> efficiently with a few standardized NaIs, which would retrofit very nicely
> into existing hardware.
>
> I think those in favour of decorated intervals need to show why they are
> absolutely necessary; even if this can be done, it should also be explained
> why we CAN'T also have NaIs for the branch-and-bound algorithms.
>
> Nate
Perhaps decorated intervals are not the answer.
But without a clear definition of NaIs to compare to,
how can one know?
As for where the burden of proof lies, I think we can
all decide that for ourselves, thank you.
Dan